This study examines viewer reaction and response to the reality police
program COPS. Survey data were collected from 117 undergraduate
students enrolled in Justice Studies courses and additional focus group data
were gathered from 35 of the respondents. A path model was constructed,
positing that gender, race, and having been the victim of a property or a
non-property crime would have significant effects upon two attitude scales
constructed about policing and fear of crime. These measures of attitude
were expected to affect how often respondents watched the program and how
violent they perceived the program content to be. Watching frequency and
perceived violence in turn were expected to affect how satisfied the
respondents were with the COPS episode they viewed and the program
overall. Using path analysis, the derived model conformed well to the
reality of the data producing a chi-square that is small (23.71 with 20
degrees of freedom) and non-significant (p=0.26). Some focus group data also
complemented the path analytic model stressing the relevance of the program’s
violent content and desensitizing effects.

INTRODUCTION

Channel surfing televised waves of news, drama, and documentaries has become
an American pastime. But clicking the remote control and scanning through a
satellite sea of selections has more recently veered television viewers into the
realm of reality programming. By rolling news, drama, and documentary styles
into one low cost wave with high ratings, reality-programming takes the traumas
of life, captured live on film or dramatically reenacted, and turns them into
prime time television series. On a continuum from America’s Funniest Home
Videos to America’s Most Wanted, reality programming gives its
audience a glimpse of some of society’s most laughable members as well as some
of its most lethal.

One pivotal point on the reality programming continuum is the popular prime
time series COPS. Neither meant to be funny nor an interactive form of
crime control, COPS is rather a voyeuristic, video-cam perspective on
police work (Andersen 1995). Currently in its eleventh season, the program’s
reel footage is filmed in ride-along fashion with U.S. law enforcement
officials. As a crux point on the reality programming continuum, COPS has
been deemed a form of info-tainment (Surette 1998; Hallett and Powell
1995),
part of the police show genre (Danielson et al. 1996), and a docu-cop show
[end page 169] (Andersen 1995). These research classifications, however, are concerned with the
program’s content rather than the routine viewer’s interpretation of COPS.

Examining the impact of reality programs, such as COPS, is important.
Television and the police are both forms of social force and control and when
combined in the production of reality, the human impacts of that joint effort
can result in more than public entertainment. The symbolic interactionist
tradition informs us that being actively engaged people participate in the
viewing process. In his examination of Television Culture, John Fiske (1987) extends this tradition by holding that people are readers, reactors, and
re-interpreters who bring their individual social residual factors to the
television screen. Considering Fiske’s (1987) contention, it follows that viewer
interest and satisfaction with on-the-scene police work packaged into a half
hour television series might be significantly related to viewers’ a priori
thoughts about crime and social control.

This study examines the relationship between the reality television program COPS
and the social viewers’ reaction to it. Data were collected from 117 Arizona
State University students enrolled in Justice Studies courses during the spring
1997 academic semester. A path model was constructed, positing that gender,
race, and having been the victim of a property or a non-property crime would
have significant effects upon two attitude scales constructed about policing and
fear of crime. These measures of attitude were expected to significantly affect
how often respondents watched the program and how violent they perceived the
program content to be. Watching frequency and perceived violence in turn were
expected to affect how satisfied the respondents were with a COPS episode
they viewed and the program overall. Using path analysis, the derived model was
found to conform well to the reality of the data. Some focus group data also
complemented the path analytic model.

THE LAW IN TV LAND

At its core, television is a viewable source of information and
entertainment, displaying and imitating the traumas of everyday life in relation
to the law (Ronell 1995). Whether one is watching School House Rock’s
version of how a bill becomes a law, a John Wayne western, Law & Order,
Geraldo, Homicide, Hard Copy, COPS, Court TV,
the nightly news, or the latest commercial for accident attorneys at law,
justice issues pervade what people see on television. In turn, people watch, and
hence make popular, programs that reflect the issues that pervade their lives,
minds, and times.

The crime content of television programs is hardly debatable. Immersing the
story line, crime even embodies the character content of people on television.
For example, such recognizable figures as Deputy Dog, Dan Rather, Forensic
Specialist Quincy, and Special Agent Fox Mulder have all dealt with the topic of
crime in its many forms: fictional, factual, physical, and futuristic. Carte
blanche access to a variety of televised crimes is concentrated in commercial
culture, evoking criticism and societal concern (Bogart 1995;
Gerbner, Mowlana,
and Schiller 1996). Fearing its effects on the future, namely children, the
"boob-tube" has been branded a harbinger of Huxley’s Brave New
World or an Orwellian form of thought control, broadcasting a 24 hour [end
page 170] overabundance of images and acts of aggression, sex, and violence (Gerbner
1994;
Gerbner, Mowlana, and Schiller 1996).

Whether television is a timeless machine propelling and prophesying the
production of what H. G. Wells would deem Morlock and Eloi people (Wells
1999),
such literarily enhanced fears still embed themselves in the relationship
between television violence and the level of violence in society. Researching
program content reveals reflections and portrayals of violence that often do not
coincidence with real life. For instance, Bogart (1995:160) points out that
property crime receives little air time, while the prime time murder rate soars
1,000 times higher than the actual U.S. crime-clock rate of one every 22
minutes. Over representation of violent crime is posited to take its toll and
leave an attitudinal impact upon its viewers (Bogart 1995;
Gerbner 1994).

Regardless of its possible impacts, the crime genre is a recognized tradition
of television. And of late, the ideological concepts of consumerism and social
control inherent to TV land have been gelling crime forms into the latest
televised trend, known as reality-based police programming (Cavender
1999). COPS,
Real Stories of the Highway Patrol, Top Cops, L.A.P.D., and
America’s Most Wanted are prime examples of current "crime
time" (Ronell 1995:109) television. These programs promote the police as an
omnipresent force, or as Ronell (1995:113) posits, "their present is not
presence: they are television . . . always on, they are on your case, in your
face" as you flick through the channels. Still, these programs have high
ratings and a reference group of social subjects caught somewhere between
"Kansas and Oz" (Ronell 1995:112) tuning into COPS and perhaps
turning on to their own social interests.

Primarily concerned with program content, most current reality television
research has focused on the social dimensions portrayed, rather than the
societal reactions provoked, by reality police programs. Similarly, research on
the social interests that reality television viewers bring to the set have yet
to be fully explored. Nonetheless, some exploratory research has been conducted
and more explicit analyses in the area of reality police programming are
forthcoming.

Most notable in this area are Mary Beth Oliver’s recent studies on
reality-based police programs. For example, in Oliver's (1994) study she examined
portrayals of crime, race, and aggression on several reality law enforcement
shows (including COPS), and found through content analysis that violent
crimes were overrepresented, as were the number of cases actually solved by
police officers. She also found that white people were most frequently portrayed
as police officers, while blacks and Hispanics were more often depicted as
criminal suspects on the various shows. In a more recent article, Oliver and
Armstrong (1999) dealt more directly with the cultivation hypothesis and found
that exposure to reality-based police shows is related to viewers having higher
estimates of crime (especially of prevalence among African Americans).

Similarly, Hallett and Powell (1995)
conducted a study, which specifically
targeted viewer interpretations of the COPS program, but their
viewer/reference group consisted solely of police officers that had taken part
in the show’s production. In trying [end page 171] to gauge what cops thought about COPS,
the Hallett and Powell study slighted the routine television viewer from the
line of response research inquiry. Still, their research found that the officers
thought the program was a good vehicle for gaining public acknowledgment and
understanding of the pressures of police work.

Another example of the range of research in this area includes Schlesinger,
Dobash, Dobash, and Weaver’s (1992) study of Women Viewing Violence, in
which recording women’s reactions to Crimewatch UK, a European version
of America’s Most Wanted, was part of the project’s stated purpose.
This Schlesinger et al. (1992) study of viewer reactions was gender specific and
concentrated on explaining the experience of visual violence. Using surveys and
focus groups, the study found that the women viewers’ reactions to the program
were related to their own experience of crime, violence, general orientation to
policing, and ethnic background. More specifically, Schlesinger et al. (1992)
found in
their examination of Crimewatch UK that female respondents perceived
non-property crimes to be more consequential than property crimes. Women who had
been victims of violence expressed a higher fear of crime, yet the majority of
the respondents, whether they had been victims or not, expressed a conscious
concern about the threat of being attacked. Presentation of the police in the
program was understood for its public image purposes, yet police availability
and responses were viewed with varied amounts of doubt and conviction,
splintering on the basis of respondent race and personal experience. Other applicable sources include the University of Texas at Austin’s
national yearlong study (1994-1995) of the amount and types of violence shown on
the numerous television series that make up the reality-programming continuum (Danielson et al.
1996). The succinct finding that "police shows are the
most violent reality programs" (Danielson et al.
1996:26) sums up these
shows’ vivid illustration of the social potential for violence to occur in
word, act, and consequence.

How reflective of real police work these programs are is a point of discord.
In a non-academic excerpt from Debra Seagal’s diary (1993), written while she
was working as a story analyst for the program American Detective, Seagal
debunks the editing techniques used to create the so-called reality of
reality-based television. Deeming reality-based police programming a
"sordid enterprise" (Seagal 1993:53), she details the reduction and
augmentation of numerous hours of police film footage that are screened, sliced,
and squeezed into the shows. These same processes are discussed by John Langley,
the executive producer and creator of COPS, on the COPS website (2001). However, he refers to them as "recutting or refinessing" to
develop integrated shows that provide "an action piece (which hooks the
audience), a lyrical piece (which develops more emotion), and a think piece
(which provokes thought on the part of the audience)" (Langley
2001). Considering
that Langley’s interview is offered on a website amidst options to read on
show related topics such as, COPS SHOP, DUMB CRIMINALS, COP OF
THE WEEK, and VIDEO PREVIEWS, Seagal’s (1993)
interpretation of a
profit-oriented editing process seems to be on target. [end page 172]

Just how "real" reality television is has become a new and engaging
vein of media research. But just how real the effects of watching television are
has been a matter of scholarly analysis and contention since about the beginning
of television itself. For the past 25 to 30 years the dominant perspective has
been that of "cultural indicators and cultivation." This perspective
suggests that what people regularly watch on TV affects their perception of the
world (the reality) in which they live (Signorielli and Morgan
1990; Gerbner 1994; Ettema and Whitney
1994).

As noted, violence and crime are common elements of prime time television
that, when repeatedly seen, may affect a viewer’s sense of the world. The most
prominent examination and explanation put forth about the impact of frequent
television viewing comes from George Gerbner (1994). Over the past 25 years
Gerbner (1994) has conducted extensive research (cultural indicators studies) on
the topic and has concluded that the major consequence of extensive exposure to
violent crime programming is the "mean world syndrome." He suggests
that a steady visual diet of intense situations, especially when they are
promoted as real, can instill in avid television viewers a sense of danger,
threat, and fear. Thereby, viewers are placed in a politically exploitable
position where information is a scarce resource, television their security
supplier, and the police their protection on television and in reality (Gerbner
1994). On Gerbner’s video The Killing Screens (1994), he uses a single
program clip to demonstrate television’s exploitation of the "war on
crime and drugs" – the program clip is a scene snippet from COPS.

Signorielli and Morgan (1990) also recognize and research the connection
between television and those who view it. Calling the examination process
"cultivation analysis," Signorielli and Morgan (and Gerbner, too) are
concerned with "long-term, cumulative consequences of exposure to an
essentially repetitive and stable system of messages, not immediate short-term
responses or individual interpretations" (Signorielli and Morgan
1990:18).
And although these aforementioned researchers realize that the mediation of
messages, meaning, construct, and context between television and the viewer is a
reciprocal relationship, television typically takes the form of an independent
variable in their studies (Signorielli and Morgan 1990;
Lewis 1991; Gerbner 1994; Ettema and Whitney
1994).

Rarely has television taken the role of dependent variable, and rarer still
is the examination of a single television show as a delineation of viewers’
concerns (Fiske 1987; Lewis 1991). Road-testing these research rarities is what
John Fiske (1987) and Justin Lewis (1990) request. This study responds to that
request. Both Fiske and Lewis acknowledge that the television audience consists
of socially produced viewers who work the remote control within the web of their
own social interests. More specifically, Fiske (1987:83) suggests that viewers
scan for programs that provide them the "textual space" to mediate
between who they are, what they see, and the way they interpret program content.
This paper adopts Fiske’s perspective and examines viewer reaction and
response to the reality police program COPS as interactive reflections of
their social selves and interests. [end page 173]

The data gathered to examine Fiske's (1987) perspective suits this study but at the
same time exhibits limitations. For instance, time constraints narrowed the
episode selection process and respondent recruitment. The sample is relatively
small at 121 and the respondents were volunteers and primarily undergraduate
Justice Studies majors. Also, no sizeable comparative group of non-Justice
Studies students was captured in the voluntary sample nor was one actively
solicited. Nevertheless, the honed interests of Justice Studies majors makes
them apt and instructive subjects for studying the reality of televised COPS.

METHODS

During the approximate two-month time span between 9/14/96 and 11/20/96, the
author watched and videotaped 45 episodes (about 22.5 hours) of COPS,
including the 1996 season episodes and those re-aired on a nightly basis as
program reruns. A single episode was selected and edited to omit commercial
advertisements. Episode selection was based on the extent to which the scenarios
shown were police calls that corresponded closely to those issues most
frequently represented on reality police programs "crime, drugs, violence,
and imprisonment" (Andersen 1995:179). Moreover, the episode was considered
a fair representation of the program’s typical combination sequencing,
described by John Langley (2001) the executive producer and creator of COPS
as, "an action piece, a lyrical piece, and a think piece."

Specifically, the 10/15/96 (Tempe, AZ: KSAZ 10) episode includes: a) a
drug/buy bust with a physical take down scene, b) a stabbing call that is also a
domestic violence situation in which both partners have AIDS, and c) a shooting
call in which the youthful minority victim ironically turns out to be the
offender who winds up behind bars in the show’s final scene. The episode also
contains d) a roll call scene in which the increasing threat of violence is
highlighted at length.

The data reported here were collected from 117 Arizona State University
undergraduate students enrolled in various Justice Studies courses during the
spring 1997 academic semester. Student participation in the project was
voluntary, anonymous, and approved by the University Human Subjects
Institutional Review Board at Arizona State University. However, an extra-credit
option was offered as inducement for participation. Of the 117 students who took
part in the study, 75.2% (n=88) were Caucasian, 11.1% (n=13) Hispanic, 5.1%
(n=6) Asian, 4.3% (n=5) African American, 2.6% (n=3) Native American, and 1.7%
(n=2) other minorities. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 51, with a mean
age of 23.6 years. The number of males (n=59) and females (n=58) in the sample
was about equal. Additionally, at the time of the study 90.6% (n=106) of the
participants indicated that Justice Studies was their current or intended
college major.

Demographic characteristics for the Justice Studies undergraduate population
were also obtained from the College of Public Programs at Arizona State
University (Office of Institutional Analysis 1996). At the time, there were 841
undergraduate students in the program, 55.9% (n=470) male and 44.1% female
(n=371). The racial distribution included: 70.6% (n=594) Caucasians, 15.2%
(n=128) Hispanic Americans, [end page 174] 4.6% (n=39) African Americans, and 2% (n=16) other
minorities. In regards to race and gender, the study sample of volunteers was
representative of the Justice Studies population from which it was solicited.

An information letter and two self-administered survey questionnaires were
given to all students taking part in the study. The first survey was
administered prior to the subjects’ viewing of the twenty-minute episode of COPS,
and the second survey was completed immediately following the video
presentation. Each respondent’s individual surveys were then stapled together
in order to link the pre/post data. In addition to the questionnaires and video
presentation, 35 students also took part in five separate focus group sessions,
with seven students taking part in each session. These focus group sessions were
conducted immediately following completion of the second questionnaire.
Selection of focus group participants was based on volunteering in advance and
showing up at an agreed upon session. In the case of surplus focus group
volunteers, selection rested upon my purposive attempt to capture quotes from an
age, race, and gender range of different people. In all, 19 men and 16 women
took part in the focus group sessions. Of the participants, 29 were Caucasian, 2
Hispanic American, 2 African American and 2 of Asian descent.

Four of the questionnaire and video sequences, as well as five of the focus
group sessions, were conducted in a large, lecture-style classroom on the
Arizona State University campus. Five additional sequences were conducted in a
smaller conference room in the Justice Studies department, accommodating no more
than five students per session.

MODEL AND MODEL VARIABLES

A path model, incorporating nine variables reflecting the findings previously
discussed in the literature review, was constructed, making satisfaction with
the COPS program the dependent variable. Questions used to operationalize
variables were primarily seven-point, Likert-type scale items. Cronbach’s
alpha was used to estimate general scale reliability as well as the internal
consistency of each scale's underlying construct. Still, it should be noted that
neither scale construction nor estimates of scale reliability are perfectible
measures (Carmines and Zeller 1979; Kaplan and Saccuzzo
1982). In addition to
scales, there were also two yes/no questions, one open-ended and one
multiple-choice question, used as well. A list of the variables and the
questions used to define them follows.

COPS. The dependent variable was constructed using a five-item index to
gauge viewer satisfaction with the COPS television program. The item
questions were adapted from Schlesinger, et al.’s (1992) Women Viewing
Violence (WVV) questionnaire. Specifically, respondents were asked to
rate their responses to the five questions on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1
corresponding to a response of "not at all" and 7 being equivalent to
a response of "very much." The questions included in the COPS
index (post survey) were: [end page 175]

(1) "How important do you think COPS is as a television
program?"
(2) "Overall, how realistic do you think the scenarios shown
were?"
(3) "Overall, how entertaining did you find these scenarios?"
(4) "Overall, how seriously did you take the scenarios shown?"
(5) "Overall, how exciting do you think these scenarios were?"

Cronbach’s alpha for the COPS index was .81.

WATCH. This model variable pertained to how often the respondent watched
the COPS television program. Answer options to this single item question
were: "several times a week," "once a week,"
"occasionally (once or twice a month)," "rarely (a few times a
year)," and "never" (pre survey).

VIOLENT. A single item question from Schlesinger, et al.'s
(1992) WVV study
was adapted to explore viewer estimates of the episode’s violence. Respondents
were asked, "Overall, how violent do you think these scenarios were?"
Their answer selection ranged from 1 to 7, with 1 being "not at all
violent" and 7 being "very violent" (post survey).

POLICING. A four-item index was utilized to measure respondent perception
of the police. Index questions were adapted from Bielby and Berk’s (1981) Criminal
Justice Evaluation report. Respondents were asked to indicate their response
on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being
"strongly agree," for each of the following statements and questions
(pre survey):

(1) "The police are too willing to use force and violence."
(2) "Some people say the police frisk or search people without good reason. Do you agree that this happens to people in your
neighborhood?"
(3) "Some people say the police don’t show respect for people or
they use insulting language. Do you agree that this happens to people in your
neighborhood?"
(4) "Some people say the police rough people up unnecessarily when they are arresting them or afterwards. Do you agree that this
happens in your neighborhood?"

Cronbach’s alpha for the Policing index was .82.

FEAR. A seven-item index measured respondent fear of crime. Items used in
the index were adapted from the 1993 Gallup Poll. Respondents were asked
to rate on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being "never" and 7 being
"very frequently," how often they themselves worried about each of the
following things (pre survey):

V-P and V-NP. To examine the direct and indirect effects of property (V-P)
and non-property (V-NP) crime victimization within the hypothesized
model, respondents were asked two separate "yes or no" questions (pre
survey). They were asked "Have you ever been victimized by a property
crime?" and "Have you ever been victimized by a non-property
crime?". A reply of "no" was coded as 0 and "yes" was
coded as 1.

GENDER. Respondents were asked to check either "male" or
"female" in response to the question item asking, "What is your
gender?" (pre survey). The responses were coded as male 0 and female 1.

RACE. Respondents were allowed to write in their response to the question
"What is your race/ethnic origin?" (pre survey). The responses
received were then collapsed into six categories corresponding to those used by
the College of Public Programs at Arizona State University. Those categories
include: Caucasians, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans,
American Indians, and other minorities. However, for the purposes of model
analysis the race variable was dichotomized with Caucasian coded as 0 and
non-Caucasian coded as 1.

This model was examined using path analysis. Path analysis is a means for
empirically measuring the effects of sequential and compounding relationships
among operationalized variables in a theoretical model. The LISREL 8.14 program
was used to estimate and measure the hypothesized structuring of paths reflected
in Figure 1. [end page 177] LISREL uses the maximum likelihood method and, hence, assumes that
the data are multivariate, normally distributed, and without non-random missing
data.

The initial model did not fit the data very well. The chi-square with 18
degrees of freedom was 29.01 (p=0.047) and the goodness of fit index (GFI) was
0.95. This indicates that the data were unlikely to be generated by the
relationships reflected in Figure 1. Based upon an examination of the
modification indices produced in the LISREL output, two paths in the initial
model were fixed and one path was freed. The two paths that were fixed (i.e.
deleted) from the model were those from V-NP (Victim of Non-Property
Crime) and V-P (Victim of Property Crime) to POLICING. The path
that was freed was the path from GENDER to VIOLENT. This decision
appeared theoretically sound and was statistically justified. Re-estimating the
derived path model featured in Figure 2 found the model meaningful. This
resulting path model lends support to Fiske's (1987) and Lewis's
(1991) notions
about viewers' personal characteristics and attitudes mediating a social stake
and satisfaction in the television program content they select. Figure 2 also
renders all of the direct path coefficients produced from the model estimation
procedures. Those paths that were significant (using the critical z-statistic
value 1.96) are designated with an asterisk.

To test the model's overall significance, the chi-square index and the GFI
were again examined. These goodness of fit statistics for the derived model are
listed at the bottom of Figure 2. The chi-square is small at 23.71 with 20
degrees of freedom and non-significant (p=0.26). The GFI is 0.96. Overall, the
theoretical underpinnings of the model as well as the signs and values of the
path coefficients reveal a model that conforms well to the reality of the data.

Complementing the path analytic model were several themes that emerged during
the focus group discussions. Those themes most directly related to the issues of
who watches COPS, why they watch, and how satisfied they are with the
program are highlighted below. Readers are reminded that the sample for this
study consists of undergraduate Justice Studies majors, whose chosen field of
study indicates a probable, pre-existing high level of interest in the situation
scenarios COPS covers. Although there is no comparative control group,
the sample purposively suits this paper's examination of the vested social
interests viewers bring to the television screen.

Crosscutting most of the groups was the theme that those who watch the
program are physically and socially removed from what they are shown on the
show. This theme suggests that those who watch are typically white working to
middle class Americans, wishing to glimpse the lives of the lower class as well
as the crimes they commit. The following quote depicts the certainty with which
focus group participants classified the "average COPS viewer":

I'm sure a lot of them are probably, you know, John Factory Worker or
something, which their exciting thing is that they got like a free donut
from the candy machine, or something like that. That's their excitement for
the day, and they come home and they can turn it off. And even though it's
somebody else's [end page 178] reality, it's not theirs and they can sit back and watch it,
and you know, get a little bit of adrenaline running through their veins
(Eric, 20 year old, Caucasian male).

Following this theme, most focus group participants voiced a concern that
what the average viewer was seeing was a censored reality – devoid of
white-collar crime, arrests of upper class people, and a police force
commissioned to deal with such prime time rarities. When asked if the program
was realistic, many students referenced their own experience and understanding
of crime and law enforcement, acknowledging that geography and class status play
a part in the level and type of crime detection featured on the show. For
instance, one student summed up the unrealistic nature of the program saying
that:

Depending on the neighborhood, police use different tactics, different
attitudes and different perceptions of people in different neighborhoods. An
officer in South Phoenix is not going to be the same, have the same persona
and the same attitude, when he pulls someone over if he were in North
Phoenix. It's two totally different areas; I think in that sense it's not
reality. And then . . . look at the areas and the people that are always on
these shows, lower to middle income, you never see anyone from like a
Paradise Valley-type neighborhood. I'm not saying that they don't do crime,
you know, but you say that this is COPS, you say this is reality,
reality whatever, but not all crime happens on the street (Chris, 27 year
old, African American male).

Heightened awareness of law enforcement and crime permeation of all social
classes pinpoints the critical and engaged perspective of this sample of Justice
Studies students.

Still, the show is popular and has high ratings. Most of the respondents
agreed that the general public and at least some of them watch the show for its
violent content. This voyeuristic appeal is aptly epitomized below:

I think people watch it for violence, entertainment and violence. I mean
it's just real violence. It's not like the movies, it's somewhere that
you've either been, or know what's happening there and you see the violence.
And I think that's why people watch it. It's reality violence (David, 30
year old, Caucasian male).

Similarly, the respondents recognized their own "rubberneck"
(Tiffany, 21 year old, Caucasian female) interests in the program's promotion of
the unfamiliar, the other. Synopsizing this curiosity, one woman said:

I think people are always interested in what the criminal justice system
is doing, what the cops are doing, and so I think that grabs peoples’
attention, just like, you know, with the O.J. trial and all that stuff.
People were attracted to it, because that's something that they're not
familiar with but they're interested in; there always seems to be an
interest in crime. And same as when you are driving down the road and there
is an accident, what do you do? You look (Shelly, 25 year old, Caucasian
female). [end page 179]

Likening the reality of COPS to a roadside accident does not singly
explain why people watch the program, but it may represent their intersection of
social concerns converging on a televised street of life.

The majority of the respondents said that the program did not affect either
their fear of crime or their trust level of others. On the contrary, most
respondents resounded a concern corresponding to the following quote:

I think that's a problem with the show . . . it distances you. Because I
think, oh, this is there but I am here, and I live in this neighborhood, so
it’s not going to happen to me . . . It makes me not fear crime like I
probably should, like anybody should . . . unless I go in those
neighborhoods (Marty, 23 year old, Caucasian female).

This diminished fear of crime and heightened sense of social distance might
be linked to what the respondents consider to be the coming prospects of reality
crime programming.

When asked what they thought lies beyond reality television, the majority of
respondents agreed that televised executions were the next step, positing that
they probably would be on pay-per-view soon. Pressing toward more violence and
crime in the present tense, one respondent described what he thought the next
reality television series would be:

Maybe a show where they follow the criminals around; they could call it CROOKS,
coming even closer to the actual crime (Eric, 26 year old, Caucasian male).

Whether or not CROOKS ever becomes a reality, COPS is a real
program in the here and now, and people have diverse thoughts about the show,
its content, and what they do and do not like about it. The focus group
discussions reveal that COPS is of social interest, it has vested
interests, and viewers mediate their own interests to and from it.

CONCLUSION

Survey and focus group data collected for this study supplement each other as
they each offer insight into the Fiske-based theoretical model which structures
people and their socially honed interests as prior to satisfaction with a
particular television program. Looking specifically at the COPS program,
I found that the personal variables of RACE, GENDER, and
victimization of a non-property (V-NP) crime had varying, but
statistically significant direct and indirect effects on viewers’ attitudes
toward POLICING, their FEAR of crime, how often they watched the COPS
program, and how VIOLENT they perceived the program content to be.
Similarly, frequency of viewing and perception of violence affected their
satisfaction with the study episode and the program overall. [end page 180]

Focus group data shored up some pathways of the model, revealing that even in
discussion format respondents acknowledged that the violent content of the
program was a meaningful attraction factor. Most of the discussants said that
the program did not affect their fear of crime but rather desensitized them to
violence and attributed crime to neighborhoods and social classes of which they
were not a part. Thus, without leaving the safety of their living room their
curiosity to see other walks of life could be satisfied.

Empirical findings and inferences, however, must be considered in light of
the fact that the sample consisted mainly of undergraduate Justice Studies
majors. The nature of their courses, career aspirations, and interests perhaps
make them more aware of the realities of crime and law enforcement. Still, this
interest is also exactly what Fiske (1987) suggests viewers employ in mediating what
they see on the television screen, thus making students of Justice Studies
befitting subjects for the purposes of studying the reality of televised COPS.

Future research might incorporate a comparative control group of non-Justice
Studies majors to contrast results. The results of that study might lead to a
larger, more representative sample of the American public for purposes of
exploring reasons people choose to watch reality television. Also, a more
elaborate causal model including variables like education, place of residence,
and a satisfaction scale concerning more than one program might provide insight
into the social factors that bring people to watch small screen reality.

The mediation of meaning between the viewer and the television screen
revealed throughout this study is a crucial point to consider. Fiske (1987) and
Lewis (1991) are correct in requesting audience research, which examines more
than television’s influence, because to recognize the impact of viewer
interactive reception in the social processing of meaning is to recognize the
force and the reality of the social viewer.

ENDNOTE

* Please address all correspondence to Kathleen Curry, Department of
Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, 322 Smith Hall, Newark,
DE, 19716 (e-mail: kcurry@udel.edu).
Kathleen Curry received her B.A. in Sociology and English at the
University of Maine and her M.S. in Justice Studies at Arizona State University.
Currently, she is pursuing her Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Delaware.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1998 annual meeting of the
Eastern Sociological Society in Philadelphia, PA.

Bielby, William T. and Richard A Berk. 1981.
Sources of Error in Survey Data Used in Criminal Justice Evaluation:Draft of Final Report. Santa Barbara, CA: University of
California, Social Process Research Institute. [end page 181]

Bogart, Leo. 1995. Commercial Culture: The Media System
and the Public Interest. New York: Oxford University Press.